"Old money" vs "New money"

[All Along The Watchtower]

I often see it written or stated that there is a difference between "Old money" (ie the WASP/blue blood elite) and "New money" (the less WASPy, younger and newly wealthy elite).

Specifically, I have heard on more than one occasion that the "Old" elite had more of a social conscience and was less extravagant than the "new" elite.

I think that this is historical revisionism...the notion that rich Americans, as a group, were ever particularly generous or ever not allied with the conservative elements in politics. Furthermore, the idea that "new money" is distinct from "old money" doesn't seem to be supported by evidence either. All American elites are "new money" compared to, say, the European aristocracies!

What say you, oh Atlas Forum?

[Indy Texas]

Compare the old industrialist families of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the finance/high-tech "masters of the universe" of this century.

The Rockefellers, the Astors, etc funded public parks, museums, and libraries for the public benefit. Silicon Valley venture capitalists just charter helicopters for themselves when BART is shut down; screw the proles.

Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, William Marsh Rice and others started universities that would educate thousands of students and produce research that benefited the country and the world. Peter Thiel would rather pay people not to go to college.

There is a difference between the attitude that wealth is something requiring stewardship and intergenerational social obligations (both to one's family and to society as a whole) and the attitude that wealth is the spoils of a Darwinian death match and proof that you are a "winner" who is 100% responsible for your success and the "losers" in their tract houses with the underwater mortgages are completely to blame for their failure not to enter the ranks of the One Percent and deserve nothing from you.

[opebo]

The important thing about these two groups is that their heads are attached to their bodies in an identical fashion, so the same apparatus will deal with either group equally well.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Compare the old industrialist families of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to the finance/high-tech "masters of the universe" of this century.

The Rockefellers, the Astors, etc funded public parks, museums, and libraries for the public benefit. Silicon Valley venture capitalists just charter helicopters for themselves when BART is shut down; screw the proles.

Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, William Marsh Rice and others started universities that would educate thousands of students and produce research that benefited the country and the world. Peter Thiel would rather pay people not to go to college.

There is a difference between the attitude that wealth is something requiring stewardship and intergenerational social obligations (both to one's family and to society as a whole) and the attitude that wealth is the spoils of a Darwinian death match and proof that you are a "winner" who is 100% responsible for your success and the "losers" in their tract houses with the underwater mortgages are completely to blame for their failure not to enter the ranks of the One Percent and deserve nothing from you.

The old industrial families you mention were called Robber Barons for a reason. Absolutely ruthless men who created monopolies in their industries that would make ExxonMobil or Comcast execs blush. They controlled both political parties to a great extent, and certainly hated the organized labor movement. But I guess their paternalism, which was-as much as anything else-motivated by a Conservative desire for social stability, influence, prestige, and personal legacies, makes up for their destructive business practices.

Also, it's worth mentioning that Social Darwinism and eugenics, among other wonderful theories, were very popular among "Old Money" polite society.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Rockefellers, the Astors, etc funded public parks, museums, and libraries for the public benefit. Silicon Valley venture capitalists just charter helicopters for themselves when BART is shut down; screw the proles.

An interesting take on modern tech billionaires. Thankfully, it's a take that's entirely incorrect. Bill Gates alone has donated $28B to charity.

[Indy Texas]

The Rockefellers, the Astors, etc funded public parks, museums, and libraries for the public benefit. Silicon Valley venture capitalists just charter helicopters for themselves when BART is shut down; screw the proles.

An interesting take on modern tech billionaires. Thankfully, it's a take that's entirely incorrect. Bill Gates alone has donated $28B to charity.

It's worth pointing out that Bill Gates, while his fortune is self-made, did come from a well-to-do family. His father is one of the most ardent advocates of keeping the estate tax in place.

Supposedly, part of the acrimony between Gates and Steve Jobs stemmed from Jobs perceiving Bill Gates as being more interested in philanthropy and noblesse oblige than in being a tech innovator, and Gates thinking Jobs lacked a sense of civic duty.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lets not view the robber barons with rose colored glasses. Of course the Larry Ellisons and Mark Zuckerbergs aren't really any better.

[memphis]

Most zillionaires do come from at least solidly middle class backgrounds. I'm sure there's a counterexample somewhere, but people don't go from the ghetto to the Fortune 500.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Most zillionaires do come from at least solidly middle class backgrounds. I'm sure there's a counterexample somewhere, but people don't go from the ghetto to the Fortune 500.

This is an important point. Most Americans (at least, in the past...) have made somewhat more over the course of their lives than their parents did, but the correlation between a person's economic status and that of their parents is actually fairly strong.

[opebo]

Most zillionaires do come from at least solidly middle class backgrounds. I'm sure there's a counterexample somewhere, but people don't go from the ghetto to the Fortune 500.

This is an important point. Most Americans (at least, in the past...) have made somewhat more over the course of their lives than their parents did, but the correlation between a person's economic status and that of their parents is actually fairly strong.

It is almost absolute.  It is absurd to state that 'most rich people came from at least solidly middle class backgrounds' - nearly all of them came from wealthy, highly privileged backgrounds.

[anvi]

Supposedly, part of the acrimony between Gates and Steve Jobs stemmed from Jobs perceiving Bill Gates as being more interested in philanthropy and noblesse oblige than in being a tech innovator, and Gates thinking Jobs lacked a sense of civic duty.

Indy, I'd actually like to learn more about this.  Can you tell me where you got this story or where I could find out more about it?

[Indy Texas]

Supposedly, part of the acrimony between Gates and Steve Jobs stemmed from Jobs perceiving Bill Gates as being more interested in philanthropy and noblesse oblige than in being a tech innovator, and Gates thinking Jobs lacked a sense of civic duty.

Indy, I'd actually like to learn more about this.  Can you tell me where you got this story or where I could find out more about it?

I recall reading it in a longform article about Jobs in one of the big business mags not long after he died. I'll try to find it if I can.

[TNF]

I think the key difference here is the the "Old Money" types were attempting to not only make money, but make the system that was being imposed on their countrymen (capitalism) legitimate in the eyes of those same countrymen so that they could go about their business. So naturally they used some of what they made to try and legitimize capitalism in the eyes of those who benefitted not one bit or very little from the system, partly as a way to buy labor peace, and partly as a way to legitimize their position as the new ruling class in the United States after the Civil War.

The key difference today is that "New Money" is removed of this "responsibility." It does not fear the rise of an alternative worldview because it (and I would wager most of the public) views said alternatives as impossible. They simply point to the old Soviet Union as "proof" that "socialism" does not work and go about their lives. They see no cause for improving the lot of anyone other than themselves nor need to invest in ideological propaganda because for these guys and gals, the "End of History" myth rings true - that there are no alternatives to capitalist economic organization and that those trying to establish them will ultimately fail.

[The Free North]

East egg, west egg.


Yawn

[ingemann]

I think people set up the wrong dichotomy between new and old money. Yes there are differences, but it's not in charity or some sort of civil mindedness as people suggest. The difference is how they look at wealth. New money tend to see money as their personal wealth, while old money tend to see it as the family's money. This mean that new money will often use the money as they see fit, while old money will see a duty to leave something to their descendants.

Of course there are also practical difference, new money often have better access to their fortune than old money, who often have their money bound up in things, which it's hard to get them out off. So Old money will often show their wealth in more subtile ways than new ones, as they can't pull out the pure quantity of money out to display wealth as new one can. Of course also old money do not have tradition at just throwing the money around, as they wouldn't have become old money if they did that. Another aspect is that their ancestors have already build their "grand palaces" and monuments.

So why do old money have a better reputation? Simple because they often don't work, so they have a lot of time on their hand, what better way to use that time on social projects. It serve to give the family a good reputation, while also it make a bunch of rich, bored and fundamental unemployed people feel good about themselves.
New money, on the other hand, are still working and don't have the time to waste in charity work.